Lieutenant REVILL. In the report. It is page 70.
Mr. HUBERT. Page 70 of Commission's Document 81-A.
Lieutenant REVILL. What happened, the secretary in typing the report
put the wrong initial. She placed R. L. Mayo, and it should read L. W.
Mayo.
Mr. HUBERT. I noticed that you are talking about the part of the letter
which starts off "Re: interview of Reserve Officer, Sgt. R. L. Mayo,
826," that being a heading on the letter of December 3, 1963, but the
next document also numbered page 70, in Commission's Document 81-A,
shows that the initial report dated November 26, addressed to Chief
Curry is signed, "L. W. Mayo," and it is your thought--that it is an
error in the first document which is entitled, "Interview of Reserve
Officer, Sgt. R. L. Mayo," and it should have been, "L. W. Mayo.?"
Lieutenant REVILL. Yes.
Mr. HUBERT. It is your opinion that that is the same person?
Lieutenant REVILL. Yes, sir; this is my opinion.
Mr. HUBERT. I understand that Sergeant Mayo, when he was interviewed
by you stated that he had been approached by some individual who was
either a minister or posing to be a minister in any case, who was
trying to get into the jail through the Commerce Street entrance on
November 24, prior to the shooting, stating that he wanted to see
Oswald, and that you had told him, well, that wasn't pertinent to your
inquiry, and all I want to do is ask you what--if it is true, and just
what comment do you have to make on it?
Lieutenant REVILL. I don't recall making that, because it would have
been pertinent to my inquiry, because in the reports I make reference
to an individual who was on the street trying to get in who was wearing
a Whitehouse--a streamer with the words, "Whitehouse Press." This, to
me, was pertinent, and this minister--of course, the minister wanted to
see Oswald prior to the shooting.
Mr. HUBERT. Yes. In other words, your statement is that you do not
recollect that Mayo made such a statement to you?